Or is it just an unfalsifiable claim that’s used to move the goalposts when there’s not sufficient evidence for any of the signs or traits of a genocide? A genocide without deaths, refugees, dehumanizing propaganda, or willful misallocation of resources?
So whether or not it simply exists is up for debate. What is clear is that the International Criminal Court does not have a definition for cultural genocide by itself. There’s a past history of politics as to why, but the modern justification is that it’s very hard to commit a cultural genocide without just committing a total genocide. After all, the easiest way to kill a culture is to kill the people that practice that culture. Even the western examples of cultural genocide, like what the europeans did to the native Americans, came about after killing tens of millions of them.
